Tuesday Open Thread

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No more SQL errors (n/t)

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

…………

Why does House Minority Leader John Boehner think we're idiots?

The Atlantic did an interview with Barack Obama in this months publication & titled it "Obama on Zionism and Hamas favicon. Obama is quoted as having said:

"the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience...He assailed Hamas as a terrorist organization and said the United States "should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements....Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no." Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..."

ABC News reports that John Boehner twisted this statement and said: favicon

"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism..."

I really don't appreciate manufactured controversy. It's abundantly clear from the Atlantic piece that Obama said nothing that Boehner said, in fact he said the opposite of what Boehner says he said. Yet here we have the Minority Leader making things up and telling the MSM (which dutifully paraded these lies to Americans) that Obama hates Americans and Obama can't be trusted by the Jews of this world. Other lesser figures have gone on to parrot Boehners statements to I guess reinforce the bullshit lies.

Why do these people think we are idiots? In this day and age of internet communications, how is it that they think they can pull the wool over Americans eyes so?

I'm going to be watching the repercussions of this one today just to see how many Malkin/Rush/O'Liely's try to run with this blatant lie.

…………

OK then ...

what DID Obama mean by the following:

But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

if not that Israel and their circumstances are a constant wound or sore that is infecting our foreign policy?

And how is Boehner's reference to Obama's statement:

not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims

twisting anything?

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Duh

The constant wound is the fighting between Israel and Palestine, not Israel itself, or Palestine itself for that matter. Not particularly difficult to understand, now is it?

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Is this not another way of saying ...

... Israel and their circumstances ...

which is precisely what Boehner was obviously referring to?

Besides which, you can't divorce "the sore" from "Israel" since it is the mere existence of Israel that is the cause of all the fighting, right? Hamas, the PLO, etc all say that the very reason they are fighting is that Israel exists ... and that they won't stop fighting as long as it does. So how can you honestly make the claim that Israel isn't the source of the fighting and, therefore, the constant sore?

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

No.

If a doctor tells me that I have a sore on my arm, should I
interpret that as him saying that I am a sore? Apparently Boehner would
interpret it that way, and apparently you would agree with him. Or
perhaps he would interpret it that way only if there was a hackneyed
partisan B.S. political point to be made.

it is the mere existence of Israel that is the cause of all the fighting, right?

If you believe this, then you must believe that there can only be one way to end the fighting. Elimination of Israel, or complete destruction of the Palestinians. I do not believe this.

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Your analogy is flawed ...

If a doctor tells me that I have a sore on my arm, should I
interpret that as him saying that I am a sore?

If we were to draw a proper analogy, it would be more like your doctor telling you that you have a sore on your arm and you interpreting that to mean that he is somehow talking about the fact that your immune system is fighting some foreign invaders there.

By your way of thinking, the sore is not a place or a spot it is an action (i.e. the fighting). I doubt that this is how most people would interpret the words "sore" or "wound".

But let me ask you, then, given the statements and positions of groups like Hamas and the PLO vis-a-vis Isreal ... what would you say is the source of the constant "sore" or "wound" from their perspective and where does the "sore" or "wound" manifest itself geographically? 

If you believe this, then you must believe that there can only be one
way to end the fighting. Elimination of Israel, or complete destruction
of the Palestinians. I do not believe this.

Hey, don't put words in my mouth.  That was the position of Hamas and the PLO, not mine.  But I will agree that if THEY believe this then what you say is most likely correct ... at least until THEY stop believing it.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

I'll get the popcorn

as we devolve into another semantics argument.

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

………… parent

Did you read the link before this post...

Obama: [Israel needs to be secure, but the history of violence over there is a constant sore]"

Boehner: "[Israel is beacon of freedom, not a sore and Obama thinks Isreal is basically an apartheid state]"

Sounds accurate?

Maybe Boehner should read up on some of the reasons why Usama loathes the States.

__________________________

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

………… parent

And thus...

...GoRight makes the point of why Boehner would intentionally misconstrue and lie about Obama's statement. Because his supporters will continue to intentionally misconstrue and lie about it as well to validate a decade of failed policies and "leadership" (moral and otherwise).

They are not interested in a serious, honest dialogue. They are interested in winning - the common good and the country be damned. Sorry, GoRight :)

………… parent

Whoa, a voice from the wilderness ...

Sorry, GoRight :)

No need to be sorry. It's all part of our good natured verbal jousting that we use to fill the day.

... intentionally misconstrue and lie about Obama's statement.

But there is not misconstruing or lying going on here, intentional or otherwise. Obama said what he said and if you dig into what it actually means it implies that he considers Israel to be a persistent problem for us, hence his use of the phrase "constant wound".

And even IF you think I am being disingenuous here, well as SL can tell you, I am merely assuming that my/our political opponents are following the golden rule ... and I am thus duty bound to treat them as I believe they treat me/us. (Generally speaking, nothing specific to this post or site.)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Hey GR

Check this out. I came across this info when looking around for various religions' interpretations of the Golden Rule. The one listed first sounds very similar to your interpretation: "react to the treatment given by others by responding to them in the same way." Take a guess as to which religion this is before clicking the link! ;>

Religions with a very different version of an "Ethic of Reciprocity" favicon

Spoiler if you don't want to click the link (highlight text to read it):
Satanism!

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

ROFL, that's a good find on your part.

But what makes you think I am not a Satanist? (Although maybe you do!) I have already expressed that I am not a Christian. Hmmmm.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Interesting perspective...

...on a related note, I have a very conservative friend that I've debated with for years over various political topics and tidbits. One of the things we've noticed is that we direct the same criticisms against the other's party/candidate/policy but always find some reason why it doesn't apply to our own.

So he will parse every fact/statement/platform from my "side" and go ballistic over the hypocricy and outright lies contained therein (or so he claims) while I'll be shocked at how skewed his point is and try to rationally explain why he is way off target on the same point. And vice versa.

And its not just language. There seems to be a big difference in how conservatives and liberals communicate in non-verbal ques and mannerisms as well. I think a lot of our partisan bickering would cease (for the better!!) if both sides actually tried to communicate in more neutral languages. Of course that wouldn't benefit the multi-billion dollar political parties and the crooks...excuse me...politicians...who benefit from them!

………… parent

I actually agree with this ...

both sides intentionally assume the worst interpretation on the part of the other. I may, on the rare occasion, fall prey to this as well. :)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

true that. Hey..the author of The Atlanitic article has a reply

out today. In it Jeffery Goldberg says favicon:

"Mr. Boehner, I'm sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn't have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there's no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a "sore," is there?

I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me.

If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here."

I won't be holding my breath though.

………… parent

Maybe its cognitive dissonence, w/google search.

http://www.swordscrossed2.org/node/1968#comment-80798

A few weeks back, Fox News trotted out old footage that had one of Fox News anchor claiming [not inferring or suggesting], but claiming there has to be a link between what happened on 9/11 and Saddam.

Bush doesn't have to claim something, if he could use peoples fear to think a secular government would use expired and useless chemical/biological weapons in conjunction with fundamentalist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

Thats back in September 2003

And oh how times change things

Sixty-three percent said the nation was right in going to war in Iraq and 32% said it was wrong. But the Time/CNN poll found Americans more closely split on whether the military action was worth the price in America lives, taxpayer dollars and other costs — 49% said yes, 43% no and 8% were unsure.

__________________________

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

………… parent

Welcome (back?) to Swords Crossed!

You've just described 90% of the dialogue that goes on here! :)

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

I do my best to stay within that other 10%

;)

………… parent

Poker living legend Doyle Brunson endorses Obama

link favicon

Doyle says "poker players have to support Obama."  I agree.  McCain has been strengthening ties to the "church lady" wing of the Republican Party, and that can be nothing but bad news for poker players and their freedoms. 

 

 

…………

Wow, so now Obama is favored by "Big Gambling" as well ...

Who is it that runs "Big Gambling" in this country? Hmmmm.

Just some additional "content of his character" to throw into the discussion, I guess.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

"Big Gambling"?

First of all, let's please separate the interests of the poker player and "big gambling"-- they are two entirely different interests.  "Big Gambling" is actually often not in favor of laws which allow the existing poker sites to flourish-- the internet poker sites are seen as  competition for the mega-casinos.  Secondly Doyle Brunson does not speak for "Big Gambling", but he does have a lot of respect from the poker community.  Thirdly, the support of what I'd call "Big Gambling" is pretty well split between McCain and the Dem candidates from what I've seen.

 

………… parent

Anyone deriving revenue from hosting a poker site ...

is part of "Big Gambling", almost by definition. Although I will accept that Doyle himself may actually be a competitor to the other factions in "Big Gambling" to which I referred.

Thirdly, the support of what I'd call "Big Gambling" is pretty well
split between McCain and the Dem candidates from what I've seen.

OK, so you agree that at least some of the group that you assumed I meant when I referred to "Big Gambling" supports Obama, right?  In addition there are other factions, such as Doyle, who are likewise part of "Big Gambling" and who also support Obama, right?

So in effect, my original statement was pretty much accurate, right?  "Big Gambling" supports Obama. 

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

You said "Big Gambling FAVORS Obama"

"Favors" would imply that Obama has more support from "Big Gambling" than the other candidates, not just "some" support.  So no, your statement was not accurate merely by the fact that Obama has "some" support from "Big Gambling". In fact, at this point, if you don't actually come up with some evidence that Big Gambling actually favors Obama, I may have to label your claim as just so much hot air ;-)

 

………… parent

Meh.

"Favors" would imply that Obama has more support from "Big Gambling" than the other candidates, not just "some" support.

No it doesn't.  Is English your first language?

I assert that:

    "Big Gambling" favors Obama [as opposed to the alternatives.]

in the same way that

    "Small children" favor candy [as opposed to the alternatives.]

In fact, at this point, if you don't actually come up with some
evidence that Big Gambling actually favors Obama, I may have to label
your claim as just so much hot air ;-)

You're the one that brought "Big Gambling" (i.e. Doyle, et al) into this discussion, not me. :)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

*sigh*

………… parent

LOL, hey skymutt ...

how's about we just agree that you misunderstood what I meant?

(Or is it too soon for that joke?)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

If this is your standard

If the fact that 

at least some of the group... supports Obama

justifies the statement

Big Gambling supports Obama.

then yes, your original statement is accurate, and also meaningless. By the same standard, one could say any of the following:

Democrats support McCain.
Conservatives support Obama.
Palestinian people support McCain.
Palestinian people support Obama.

All accurate statements according to you. All meaningless as well. 

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Well, that's what I get when I take one of skymutt's points ...

then yes, your original statement is accurate, and also meaningless.

and simply run with it.  Will I never learn?  :)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Will you never learn?

I sincerely hope you do! :)

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

LOL

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Well done.

A simply delightful analysis, of GoRight logc.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Actually, it's not my logic.

It's the meaning of simple statements in the English language. I didn't make the rules, I just follow them.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

It's Root

"Big Gambling" tends to support Libertarian hopeful Wayne Allyn Root more than anyone else. He's been racking up their endorsements because he's one of them.

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

………… parent

No surprise here ...

a story from the MSM about a Mayor being ousted and it never mentions his Democrat party affiliation even once. Hmmmm.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

…………

Well what would Fox do?

They'd slap a (D) after the name of anyone who has just been indicted or had a public perp walk.

WWFD.....

………… parent

Ohio's top Democrat Lawyer facing impeachment ...

House Democrats begin impeachment process for Dann favicon

Democrats in the Ohio House of Representatives have filed to impeach Attorney General Marc Dann.

The House Democratic Caucus on Tuesday filed nine articles of impeachment against Dann, a Democrat. Many of the articles point to alleged instances of neglect that legislators contend occurred in Dann's sworn testimony during an independent investigation into sexual harassment allegations involving a former staffer and other statements Ohio's top lawyer has made.

[...]

Enough said.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

…………

Allow me to highlight

more important parts:

Democrats in the Ohio House of Representatives have filed to impeach Attorney General Marc Dann.

The House Democratic Caucus on Tuesday filed nine articles of impeachment against Dann, a Democrat. Many of the articles point to alleged instances of neglect that legislators contend occurred in Dann's sworn testimony during an independent investigation into sexual harassment allegations involving a former staffer and other statements Ohio's top lawyer has made.

Democrats are the minority in both houses of the general assembly. Why wasn't Speaker Husted and the Republican leadership out on front of this one?

And as far as I know, Dann has already been kicked out of the party. At the very least, the Democrats have "unendorsed" him, which means he isn't getting anything from the party in terms of resources.

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

………… parent

Meh.

I have no problem with giving the Democrats credit for kicking the schmuck out once he was exposed identified. :)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

The stupid party strikes again ...

Here's a Michelle Malkin piece you Democrats might actually like:

The stupid party strikes again “The Change You Deserve” favicon

[...]

Conservatives have spent the entire campaign season eviscerating Democrat candidates who’ve tattooed themselves with the empty “change” slogan. So what do the brain-dead strategists and p.r. market wizards of the GOP go and do?

Wrap themselves in “change.”

[...]

The crack research staff at GOP HQ somehow missed that “Change You Deserve” is the marketing slogan for Effexor, an anti-depressant. favicon

Brilliant.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

…………

And here I thought you'd like that RINO hunting tag

Michelle uses.

Tacky but funny....so long as some nut doesn't actually go out and kill any RINO's.

………… parent

I know that this is a week late, but ...

I wanted to make sure to highlight it here ...

Behold the Power of Irrelevance
Mission accomplished.

Irrelevance is sweet. Sweetest, perhaps — ironically — for John McCain.

It was only a few months ago that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared favicon talk-radio king Rush Limbaugh “irrelevant.”

David Brooks announced favicon that “Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and James Dobson have influence, but they are not arbiters of conservative doctrine.”

[...]

But on Tuesday, in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, two things happened which should have Ahnuld, Brooks, the Washington PostThe Rush Limbaugh Show today and for the rest of the 2008 election: newsroom, and the McCain campaign — for the senator’s sake — tuning into

First: Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos favicon” — which has encouraged Republicans to vote for Clinton in open-primary states — may have reached its zenith.

[...]

The beginning of the end for the woman who would be the first Madam President, coming as late as it did — the Pennsylvania primary is not supposed to be a pivotal event! — can almost certainly be chalked up to the hardly irrelevant Operation Chaos. No less than the Obama campaign acknowledged Limbaugh’s role favicon. OpChaos was about divide and conquer. Create chaos on the Left. Weaken the Democratic nominee.

And so it has.

At
the end of it all — which is about where we are now — it worked: The protracted Democratic battle helped welcome Jeremiah Wright back to the podium. Even Obama’s relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers favicon got a little more airtime (with more to come). There were actual debates. The bloom came off the Barackstar rose. Obama has been wounded in a way that McCain would never have done and that his fans in the media would probably not have permitted if Hillary hadn't stayed in the race

[...]

There was a second important component to Tuesday’s primaries: In North Carolina, 26 percent of Republicans voted favicon against John McCain; 22 percent voted favicon against him in Indiana. Behold the power of talk radio, John McCain, which could help deliver a Republican victory this year, in spite of party perils favicon and the GOP candidate’s frequent alienation from his base.

As a conservative who is skeptical of the Arizona senator — and who was reminded favicon that McCain cannot always be relied on during the senator’s speech on judges at Wake Forest University — said to me this morning: It’s possible that “OpChaos has provided the only plausible rationale for voting Republican this year.” And as a legitimate arbiter or at least leading interpreter of conservative doctrine, Limbaugh sleeps at night knowing he’s not being a party guy. He’s trying to save the Republican party from itself, while standing athwart those who would allow it to be reshaped in the image of John McCain.

Not bad for a has been, eh?

Obama Camp Credits ‘Operation Chaos’ for Clinton Lead in Indiana favicon

Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.

In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”

“The Limbaugh Effect” referred to “Operation Chaos,” which the conservative radio talk show host launched early in the primary season to create “balance” in the 2008 primary contest after he said liberal influences helped John McCain emerge as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Wow, 7 percent in Indiana. Not bad for someone who is supposedly irrelevant,eh?

Obama Camp Urges Superdelegates: “Bring This to a Close” favicon

[Senator John] Kerry [who served in Vietnam] said that it is the responsibility of the superdelegates to ensure that the Democratic Party will be unified at the convention in August, and suggested that Obama could have won the Indiana primary last night if it was not for the Republicans. “I think if it hadn’t been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots he likely would have won in Indiana too,” Kerry said. “Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly declared that they want Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

Direct from the last election's loser, Rush most likely tilted the Indiana primary to Clinton.

Did Rush help Hillary in Indiana? favicon

Obama chief strategist David Axelrod, speaking to reporters on Obama’s plane on the way to Chicago from his rally on Tuesday night in North Carolina, said he saw a Rush factor at play in Clinton’s win.

He said Clinton ought to “call a press conference and thank Rush Limbaugh for the victory.” He said the margin of victory for Clinton was so narrow, there is a good chance Limbaugh might have tipped the scales for her.

Eleven percent of the total electorate were Republicans. She got 52 percent of those. A large percentage of them said they would favor McCain in a race against Clinton.

 

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

…………

I still can't see you goin' to school down at The Farm.

Yea, I can see you loving the Hoover Institute, but the whole rest of that Palo Alto thing isn't what you project here.

When did you graduate?

………… parent

I was at Stanford from '84 to '85 to get my Masters in CS.

My company paid for the whole thing as well as paid me 50% of my salary during that period, but I only had 1 year to get my MS degree - not an easy task at Standford. It was a sweet deal, though. A lot of us went there as part of what used to be called the One Year On Campus program, or OYOC for short.

I didn't go to Standford because of their politics or that of the entire Bay Area. I went there because it was a top name school. I wasn't very politically minded at the time.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Go Cardinal!

You're older than I thought.

You've been out of school for just about as long as I've been alive. Doesn't that make you feel old?

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

………… parent

Did you see any of the concerts they had at the Frost Ampithear

then?

I went to the Grateful Dead shows they had there during that timeframe. They were AWSOME!!!!

………… parent

Irrelevant, no. Jackass, yes.

The biggest silver lining, if somehow Clinton gets the nomination, is that when she kicks McCain's butt and is President of the United States, it will be Rush that was in large part responsible for it!

But of course, that is probably what he wants. Another Clinton presidency is ratings gold for him, and I have little doubt that his personal fame and fortune is more important to him than his political desires.

And in the end, the main effect that "Operation Chaos" has had is probably just that - ratings gold, in this case for cable news. The prolonged Democratic primary hasn't changed Obama's poll ratings - in fact in some areas they've gotten better favicon. It has resulted in greater interest in primary elections in the later states - good for the news shows, and good for the Democratic Party, as the number of new registered voters continues to grow. And I am sure that all the attention has also helped to stroke Limbaugh's ego - he's such a humble and self-effacing guy, so maybe this will help him break out of his shell. 

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

But of course ...

Obama's poll ratings - in fact in some areas they've gotten better.

you point is a red herring since affecting Obama's ratings were never part of the goal of Operation Chaos.  The goal was simply to keep Hillary alive so that she and Obama would give us ammo on each other for the general election, and that it has down beyond all expectations. 

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Fess up

Both you and Rush have a crush on Hillary.

Clinton seems to be using some of that GoRight logic, words that string together and go on endlessly, moving the goal posts for the sake of making 'the argument' win. You should be flattered, GoRight.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

At this point in time ...

Hillary is nothing but a pawn. A tool to be used to expose as much dirt on Obama as possible. She has served us well.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

"us"?

Do you mean the Rush cult? The one's hypnotized by the sounds of Rush's voice to follow the commands of their great leader?

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Sure, if that's what you want to fool yourself into believing ..

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Rush for Clinton?

I wouldn't have thought so by chance since they were so enamored of Ayn Rand.

Well, Tom Sawyer was a good song, I suppose. After all, his mind is not for rent to any god or government.

__________________________

I'm listening to... favicon
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

………… parent